The objective of this task is to develop a mix design procedure for the various types of FDR Determine what works and what does not work Each

Full Depth Recycling PTP Meeting

Task 4 - Data Analysis

The objective of this task is to develop a mix design procedure for the various types of FDR

Determine what works and what does not work

Each type of FDR has separate mix design

Task 4-Development of FDR Mix Design Guide

◦ Unstabilized◦ Mechanically stabilized with virgin aggregate◦ Stabilized FDR with Portland Cement◦ Stabilized FDR with Fly Ash◦ Stabilized FDR with Asphalt Emulsion◦ Stabilized FDR with Asphalt Emulsion with 1% Lime◦ Stabilized FDR with Foamed Asphalt with 1% Portland

Cement (2% Portland Cement)

Types of FDR

◦ Source: Good and Poor

◦ Quality: Dirty and Clean

◦ RAP: 0, 25, 50, and 75%

Composition of FDR

FDR Source GradationFDR Type

Unstabilized Stabilized with PC (3, 5, 7 %)

Stabilized with Fly Ash (10, 12, 15 %)

Stabilized with Asphalt Emulsion (3,

4.5, 6 %)

Stabilized with Asphalt Emulsion (3,

4.5, 6 %)+ Lime

Stabilized with Foamed Asphalt (2.5,

3, 3.5 %) + PC

PoorDirty -Moisture-density

curve-Mr and CBR

-Moisture-density curve- Compressive strength-Moisture sensitivity


-Superpave Gyratory- Bulk density using Corelok- Maximum density using Corelok-Moisture conditioning


-Superpave Gyratory- Moisture-density curve (use results of unstabilized)- Bulk density using Corelok- Maximum density using Corelok-Moisture conditioning

Clean -Moisture-density curve-Mr and CBR






GoodDirty -Moisture-density

curve-Mr and CBR






Clean -Moisture-density curve-Mr and CBR




-Superpave Gyratory- Bulk density using Corelok- Maximum density using Corelok-Moisture s conditioning


Testing of Mechanically Stabilized FDR Mixes

Resilient Modulus TestingCalifornia Bearing Ratio (CBR) Testing

Testing of Portland Cement/Fly Ash Stabilized

FDR Mixes

Unconfined Compression Testing Tube Suction Testing

Testing of Portland Cement/Fly Ash Stabilized

FDR Mixes

Moisture Sensitivity Testing with Wire Brush Method

Tested Samples

Testing of Asphalt Emulsion/ Foamed Asphalt FDR Mixes

SuperPave Gyratory Compactor

Foamed Asphalt Lab


CoreLok Device

Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS) Testing

Gradations

1101000.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Good CleanGood DirtyPoor CleanPoor Dirty

Grain Size (mm)

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Strength: ◦ Mr and CBR for unstabilized ◦ UCS for cement and fly ash stabilized◦ ITS for foamed and emulsion stabilized

Moisture Susceptibility ◦ Tube Suction and ASTM D559(wire brush test)

For cement and fly ash stabilized ◦ AASHTO T-283 (freeze thaw cycle)

For foamed and emulsion stabilized

Mix Design Issues

What works and what does not

What criteria to implement

Repeatability and reliability

Does the measurement make engineering sense

Mix Design Issues

Unstabilized FDR

75% 50% 25% 0%105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

Density Chart

GCGDPCPD

% of RAP

Den

sity

(lb/

ft3)

Unstabilized FDR

75% 50% 25% 0%6

7

8

9

10

Moisture Chart

GCGDPCPD

% of RAP

Moi

stur

e co

nten

t (%

)

Unstabilized FDR

75 50 25 015000

17000

19000

21000

23000

25000

27000

29000

Resilient Modulus

GCGDPCPD

% of RAP

Reis

iele

nt M

odul

us (p

si)

Unstabilized FDR

02550750.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

55.00

Good CleanGood DirtyPoor CleanPoor Dirty

RAP %

Avera

ge C

BR

RAP 25% and 50% content did not significantly impact the Mr

The 75% RAP improved the Mr of the Poor source

Relationship between Mr and CBR is un-reliable for FDR: Use Mr

Unstablized FDR

FDR+PC & FDR+FA◦ Dry UC: 300 – 400 psi◦ Tube Suction: max 9

FDR+Foamed & FDR+Emulsion◦ Dry TS at 77F: min 30 psi◦ TS Ratio: min. 70%

Mix Design Criteria

Material %PC Dry UC (psi) Tube Suction

GC-25% 5 283 4.6

GC-50% 7 407 4.6

GC-75% 7 409 3.9

GD-25% 3 352 6.3

GD-50% 5 413 5.3

GD-75% 7 374 5.9

PC-25% 3 295 6.2

PC-50% 5 379 4.0

PC-75% 5 256 7.1

PD-25% 3 454 5.5

PD-50% 3 421 3.1

PD-75% 5 409 3.6

Optimum Mix Designs: FDR+PC

UC strength between 300 and 400 psi is achievable in most cases

Higher UCS with higher PC content in all cases

Variability of the UCS test is acceptable

Tube suction test may be applicable

Stabilized with PC

Good Clean 75% Rap 7% Cem

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

2055

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Cycles

Wei

ght (

gm)

Poor Dirty 50% Rap 3% CEM

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

2050

2100

2150

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Cycles

Wei

ght (

gm)

Specimen ID Average % loss

Poor Clean 75% Rap 5% CEM 0.9%



Poor Clean 25% Rap 12% FA 2.1%



Good Dirty 25% Rap 3% CEM 2.6%



Good Dirty 75% Rap 10% FA 4.1%



Good Clean 75% Rap 7% Cem 0.7%



Good Clean 75% Rap 12% FA 9.6%

Good Clean 50% Rap 12% FA failed sample


Poor Dirty 75% Rap 5% CEM 1.5%



Poor Dirty 75% Rap 15% FA 12.5%



Stabilized with PCASTM D559(wire brush test)

Material %FA Dry UC (psi) Tube Suction

GC-25% 12 895 5.1

GC-50% 12 362 4.1

GC-75% 12 335 4.6

GD-25% 10 579 10.6

GD-50% 10 412 7.1

GD-75% 12 330 9.2

PC-25% 10 558 6.0

PC-50% 12 404 6.5

PC-75% 12 327 5.6

PD-25% 15 170 6.9

PD-50% 15 159 9.8

PD-75% 15 63 9.2

Optimum Mix Designs: FDR+FA

UC strength between 300 and 400 psi is achievable except for the Poor-Dirty material

Higher UCS with higher FA in most cases

Variability of the UCS is acceptable

Tube suction test may be applicable

Stabilized with FA

Good Dirty 50% Rap 10% FA

1760

1780

1800

1820

1840

1860

1880

1900

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Cycles

Wei

ght (

gm)

Poor Clean 75% Rap 10% FA

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Cycles

Wei

ght (

gm)

Specimen ID Average % loss

















Good Clean 50% Rap 12% FA failed sample








Stabilized with FAASTM D559(wire brush test)

Material %Emulsion Dry TS(psi) Wet TS(psi) TSR (%)

NO LIME

GD-25% 4.5 41 15 37

GD-50% 4.5 47 20 43

GD-75% 4.5 46 21 46

PD-25% 4.5 30 Disintegrate



1% LIME

GD-25% 4.5 45 27 60

GD-50% 4.5 37 32 86

GD-75% 4.5 44 31 70

PD-25% 4.5 22 13 59

PD-50% 4.5 38 17 45

PD-75% 4.5 34 19 56

Optimum Mix Designs: FDR+Emulsion

Could not produce a design using the clean materials: too little fines

The ITS is a good indicator

The repeatability of the ITS is very good

Lime was effective

Stabilized with Emulsion

Material %AC Dry TS(psi) Wet TS(psi) TSR (%)

GC-25% 3.0* 53 43 81

GC-50% 3.0* 51 41 80

GC-75% 3.0* 58 45 78

GD-25% 3.5 45 34 76

GD-50% 3.5 44 43 98

GD-75% 3.5 51 42 82

PC-25% 3.5 54 32 59

PC-50% 3.5 53 40 75

PC-75% 3.5 48 33 69

PD-25% 3.0 43 26 60

PD-50% 3.0 48 29 60

PD-75% 3.0 55 35 64

Optimum Mix Designs:FDR+Foamed+1%PC

Could not design without the PC

The ITS is a good indicator

The repeatability of the ITS is very good

Stabilized with Foamed Asphalt


The objective of this task is to develop a laboratory testing procedure to address material properties needed to support practical pavement design. The focus will be on developing standard test methods to be used specifically for AASHTO related pavement designs.

The FDR process produces a layer that will be modeled as a base course within the structure of a flexible pavement.

Task 5 – Development of Standard Laboratory Testing

Method

FDR Source GradationFDR Type

Unstabilized Stabilized with PC at optimum

%

Stabilized with Fly Ash at

optimum %

Stabilized with Asphalt Emulsion

at optimum %

Stabilized with Asphalt Emulsion (at optimum %)+

Lime

Stabilized with Foamed Asphalt

(at optimum %) + PC

PoorDirty - Resilient

Modulus- CBR

- Compressive Strength- Modulus of Rupture


- E* Master Curve- Repeated Load Triaxial



Clean - Resilient Modulus- CBR






GoodDirty - Resilient

Modulus- CBR






Clean - Resilient Modulus- CBR






Resilient Modulus Dynamic Modulus E* Master Curve Repeated Load Triaxial

Simple Performance Tester (SPT)

Frequency (Hz)

Dynamic Modulus (kPa)

Phase Angle (Deg)

Average Temp. (C)

Average Conf. Press. (kPa)

Load Drift (%)

Deformation Drift (%)

Std. Error for Load

(%)

Std. Error for Deforms

(%)

Uniformity Coef. For

Deforms (%)

Uniformity Coef. For

Phase Angles (Deg)

25 2448734 26.3 36.9 0 1.02 12.75 8.43 7.23 9.88 0

10 1742475 26.73 36.8 0 -2.9 1.08 19.27 14.3 10.4 0.37

5 1504835 25.33 36.6 0 -0.04 5.9 8.86 6.84 9.62 0.47

1 963524.6 23.19 36.5 0 -1.89 11.64 10.4 8 7.72 0.86

0.5 812014.9 21.97 36.5 0 -2.07 15.17 9.92 8.28 6.07 0.66

0.1 592362.4 18.04 36.4 0 -3.91 2.94 4.18 5.32 4.93 0.34

Date:9/9/200

8Specimen Gauge Length (mm): 70Specimen Dia. (mm): 100Specimen Height. (mm): 150Cross Sec. Area (mm2) 7853.98Test Temp (C): 36.4Conf. Pres. (kPa): 0

Dynamic Modulus Results

E* Master Curve

Foamed Asphalt Specimen:Poor Dirty Gradation with 75% RAP

CoreLok for specific gravity determination.


0 5 10 15 20 25 300.0

1000000.0

2000000.0

3000000.0

4000000.0

Good Clean - 75% RAP - 1% Cement - 4.4 Deg C

Frequency (hertz)

Dynam

ic M

odulu

s (

kP

a)

0 5 10 15 20 25 300.0

500000.0

1000000.0

1500000.0

2000000.0

2500000.0


Frequency (hertz)

Dynam

ic M

odulu

s (

kP

a)

0 5 10 15 20 25 300.0

200000.0

400000.0

600000.0

800000.0

1000000.0

1200000.0


Frequency (hertz)

Dynam

ic M

odulu

s (

kP

a)

0 5 10 15 20 25 300.0

100000.0200000.0300000.0400000.0500000.0600000.0700000.0

Good Clean - 75% RAP - 1% Cement - 54 Deg C

Frequency (hertz)

Dynam

ic M

odulu

s (

kP

a)


Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)

Coring of Base Material

Unconfined Compression Testing

CEM 1 – UCS Test Results

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.160

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Cement#1 Sample A2Cement#1 Sample B2Cement#1 Sample C2

Deformation (Inches)

Load (Lbs)

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.140

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Cement#2 Sample A1Cement#2 Sample A2Cement#2 Sample B1


Load (Lbs)

CEM 2 – UCS Test Results

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.180

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

FOAM Sample A2FOAM Sample B2FOAM Sample C2


Load (Lbs)

AF– UCS Test Results

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)

Deflection Basin and DCP Values

Task 9 – Proposed Outline

Mix Designs Sampling of Materials

◦ Locations◦ Quantities

Processing of FDR Materials Mix Design Properties for each FDR Type Mix Design Process

◦ Test Methods◦ Necessary modifications (if required)

Mix Design Criteria Selection of Optimum Mix Designs AASHTO Standards

Major Parts of Task 9

Performance Properties of FDR Materials Selected Properties for each FDR Type Selected Test Methods (including any necessary

modifications) Data Analysis from each Test Method Use of Data Measured from the Performance Testing

◦ AASHTO 1993 Pavement Design◦ AASHTO MEPDG

AASHTO Standards

Major Parts of Task 9

Documents

The objective of this task is to develop a mix design procedure for the various types of FDR Determine what works and what does not work Each